Why save scanned negs?

Just think of it as an extra file back up that's already taken care of.

Or, like a RAW file that you save (instead of only the output files) - so that you can reprocess (or rescan) later. In case technology improves, or you accidentally screw up.
 
Pretty much what R_D said.

In addition: with digital capture, when you take the shot, that's it: whatever limitations you were dealing with in-camera (sensor, d/a conversion, etc) are locked into the image forever. Provided you save your files with due diligence, there's no need to keep the original file on the card. In the instance of film, I've watched scanner technology steadily improve (at least up to 2004-5 in terms of 35mm scanners), and upgraded when possible and/or I deemed it important enough. I haven't felt the need to go back and re-scan everything I'd worked on before, but in some cases I have, and the difference was worth the effort. And, there's always more to scan, old and new.

When I shoot digital, I need to find a storage solution for my files. When I shoot film, I already have one.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Never throw away a negative!!!

That statement will now take its place next to the other RFF Truth,

Everyone needs an M3.

Thank you
 
FrankS said:
...because "digital archiving" is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

rover said:
Never throw away a negative!!!

Everyone needs an M3.
Click to expand...

I have negatives from my fathers youth (1930s and 40s) that will still work great in a scanner, projector, enlarger.

I have data (resumes, letters, etc.) on 8" floppy disks, tape cartridges and other media that is not older than 25 years that I can no get to for two reasons. First I readers that interface from either a hardware or software perspective with the computers I now have. Oldest thing I have is a 3.5 in drive. Second because even if I could get at the bits, the format is no longer supported (e.g. Wang Word Processing). While JPEG and TIFF are pretty standard today, so was Wang about 25 years ago.

RFF Rule Nbr 2, Do not destroy negatives!

While we are at rules, I would like to modify Rule Nbr 3 to read "Everyone needs to own either an M3 or an S2 at some time in their lives"

B2 (;->
 
power surges don't destroy negatives. i hope you have several backups in several different physical locations. the first time your hard drive's wiped clean, you'll see why.

and how do you know you'll never want to print optically? it would be a real killer if someday you had the irresistible urge to print an old negative, but oh, too bad. you threw it away. but in the end, it doesn't matter to me. do what you want and hope that some day you don't find yourself saying "damn, i wish hadn't thrown all that film away".
 
I'll second what the others have said:

I think that scanning resolution will improve in the future at the price point at which I can afford. Also, it is one more backup medium. I accidentally deleted some computer files at work today; fortunately, I had a backup.
 
You need to fix your film at least half of its given/recommended time or your film could start to fog while it's in the scanner (or before, while drying). As a rule, half the fixer time is needed to fix the image so it can be seen in ambient light, while the second half is to keep the image permanent over the months/years.

If you really view negatives as disposable, then you should fix for about half the time you do now. Of course, with all the money you spend on buying and developing the film already, I don't see why you can't go the extra step and fix the negatives and keep them in an old shoe box or something, at least.
 
Ducky said:
If I shoot digital I save the images and erase the card.
Click to expand...

SD cards are so cheap these days, I leave the images on the card and buy new ones occasionally.

It's part of my "four-pronged" backup plan:
1. Leave images on card
2. Copy images to computer.
3. Copy images from computer to external harddrive.
4. Print the best images at walmart.

Not perfect, but it's better than no backup at all.
 
I'm still selling prints from my negatives I shot in the early 1960's and for some silly reason a lot of folks are willing to pay more money for a gelatin silver print compared to an ink jet. My great grandchildren will be able to look at my negatives and see that there are pictures there. You don't see pictures on those funny little silvery discs, and they probably won't be able to buy anything to read those primitive old fashioned things anyway. Visible pictures? You can always figure out a way to print them.
 
So I can scan them better later, of course. Or rescan them if something happens to the file. My earliest scans were with a flatbed, now I use a mid-range slide scanner. That upgrade gave me huge quality improvements. If I ever buy a high-end scanner I know I'll want those negatives. And, really, unless you're shooting like Gary Winogrand the negatives don't take up that much space.
 
Ducky said:
Since I don't do wet printing, why save the negs after I scan and save the images?


Sacrilege I know😱.
Click to expand...

1) because your scanned digital images can be lost or corrupted

2) because improved scanners at a future time will give you improved scans

3) as digital becomes more and more the norm, photographers will likely be able to charge appreciably more for wet prints, especially if they are signed and actually factually made by the photographer.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom